Proof of the Bible: The Psychological Evidence

If the teachings of the Bible address and satisfy our psychological needs like a window fits or satisfies its window-frame, we should conclude that they were designed to fit together. Furthermore, if we find that the Bible fits our psychological needs in ways that might not be immediately apparent – in ways that transcend the wisdom of our culture – we might conclude that the Bible is the product of a superior wisdom.

The article below, published by the Christian Research Journal several years ago, addresses the relationship between depression and the Bible.

In many ways, the Bible embodies evidence that it’s the product of a superior Intelligence. This can be demonstrated by examining its wisdom regarding human psychology, especially as we compare it to the secular solutions for psychological-emotional problems.


THANKFULFNESS AND DEPRESSION
Thankfulness is great for body and soul and even for depression. According to Lauren Aaronson:

Feeling thankful and expressing that thanks makes you happier and heartier… Just jot down things that make you thankful…Call it corny, but gratitude just may be the glue that holds society together.

In other words, "Just do it!" Although helpful, thankfulness, without God and an assurance of heaven, can be irrational and delusional. Just consider someone who is terminally ill, has lost family and friends, and has nothing tangible to look forward to but death! Besides being insensitive, advising her to be thankful is asking her to be irrational. Although, thankfulness might work emotionally, it requires the client to lobotomize her mind and to deny the most significant aspects of her life.

In addition to this, there remains the awkward question: “Thankful to whom?” Indeed, thankfulness makes sound psychological sense, but Aaronson avoids this obvious question. It’s like throwing a party without inviting the host—not a very thankful thing at that!

Thankfulness demands that we open our eyes and acknowledge that there must be a hidden subject who should be acknowledged. This all comes very naturally and comfortably for the Christian, who needs not make believe that the Host doesn’t exist. In fact, the Host is the lynchpin who ties it all neatly together, making sense out of thankless situations. Asaph, the Psalmist, writes, “My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psalm 73:26, NIV). Besides, practicing Biblical thankfulness doesn’t require the depressed to deny the painful realities of their lives.

HOPE AND DEPRESSION
Depressed people need hope more than anything else. They have been fighting a foe that is greater than they and have despaired of their own efforts. Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl, had observed many struggle and finally acquiesce to the verdict of the death camps. In Man’s Search for Meaning, he writes:

The prisoner who had lost his faith in the future—his future—was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and become subject to mental and physical decay.

Frankl understood that the best elixir for despair was hope. The Bible concurs: “A man's spirit sustains him in sickness, but a crushed spirit who can bear?” (Proverbs 18:14, NIV). But how does one obtain hope? In The Noonday Demon, termed by one reviewer as “the definitive book on depression,” Andrew Solomon, himself a long-time sufferer, writes,

Since depression is highly demotivating, it takes a certain survivor impulse to keep going through the depression, not to cave into it. A sense of humor is the best indicator that you will recover; it is often the best indicator that people will love you. Sustain that and you have hope.

A sense of humor is a great gift. Some have a natural endowment of it, while others have to learn it. However, it’s more than a skill; it’s also a vision of life. It can laugh at itself and one’s foibles, because they are foibles when compared to eternity (Rom. 8:18-19), and not the actual substance of life. Solomon understands the difficulty of laughter in the context of his reality:

Of course it can be hard to sustain a sense of humor during an experience that is really not so funny. It is urgently necessary to do so…Whatever time is eaten by a depression is gone forever. The minutes that are ticking by as you experience the illness are minutes that you will not know again. No matter how bad you feel you have to do everything you can to keep living, even if all you can do for the moment is breathe. Wait it out and occupy the time of waiting as fully as you can. That’s my big piece of advice to depressed people.

Do better, try harder! That’s not very hopeful—especially not for those who really need hope. Indeed, we must often wait, but we also need to know that, when we are at our weakest and lowest, we are actually at our highest (2 Cor. 12:9-10)! We need the assurance that even in the midst of depression, our dear Lord is drawn to us in our pain (Isa. 57:15; 66:1-2; Psalm 34:17-18), is suffering along with us (Heb. 4:15; Isa. 63:7-11), and is working even our defeats and failures towards a blessed and eternal conclusion (Rom. 8:28; Phil. 1:6; John 6:37-40)!

Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled, writes 15 years later about his journey from Zen Buddhism to Christianity. He had repeatedly observed that his Christian clients would improve, no matter how serious their psychiatric condition. He concludes,

The quickest way to change your attitude toward pain is to accept the fact that everything that happens to us has been designed for our spiritual growth…We cannot lose once we realize that everything that happens to us has been designed to teach us holiness…We are guaranteed winners!

If our hope is in ourselves rather than in our omnipotent and all-loving God, we have no guarantees except death and decay. Solomon also appreciates the power of faith:

Frankly, I think that the best treatment for depression is belief, which is in itself far more essential than what you believe in. If you really truly believe that you can relieve your depression by standing on your head and spitting nickels for an hour every afternoon, it is likely that this incommodious activity will do you tremendous good.

Indeed, it is a well-demonstrated fact that the placebo effect is powerful. If we believe in something, anything, it will make a difference, at least for the short-run. However, unless a faith accords with reality (our experiences and observations) and is nurtured by compelling evidences, it will subside and so too its positive influences.

God has not left His suffering people destitute of compelling reasons-to-hope. He has not been slack in providing authenticating miracles (Mat. 11:5-6; John 5:31-36; 10:37; 20:25-31; Acts 1:3; Heb. 2:4) and fulfilled prophecy (Luke 24:25-27, 44-45; John 14:28-29; 16:1-4, 32-33; Acts 17:2-4; 18:4; 28:23) to reassure our fretful minds.

The alternative to a trust in God is a trust in self. Such a trust is constantly under the attack by our experiences that indict this notion. We’re not worthy of self-trust, and consequently, it can only be maintained through a most repressive form of denial. Nevertheless, we yearn to trust, but trust can only flourish when finally married to its intended Husband.

AUTHENTICITY, SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND DEPRESSION
We have to be authentic and at peace with the true self, but this is difficult. When we lack authenticity and transparency, we are in disharmony and conflict, obsessively trying to maintain an image, a lie. Karen Wright writes:

Authenticity is correlated with many aspects of psychological well-being, including vitality, self-esteem, and coping skills. Acting in accordance with one’s core self—a trait called self-determination—is ranked by some experts as one of the three basic psychological needs.

Here are some of Wright’s suggestions to achieve authenticity: read novels, meditate, cultivate solitude, and play hard. These suggest that all we need to do is to spend some quality time with ourselves. She also maintains that we should “be willing to lose” and cites Thomas Moore’s rationale:

Feelings of inauthenticity are heightened by a lack of a philosophy that allows failure to be part of life. If you’re leading a full life, you are going to fail some every day.

Moore is correct. Failure is a part of life, and we need to learn to graciously accept it rather than to inauthentically deny our failures. However, finding that supportive philosophy is not easy. Secularism can’t provide it. If you believe that you only go around once, then failure assumes monumental importance. Thus, secularism puts an even greater burden to succeed in our limited time upon our shoulders. If we fail to achieve, well then, we’ve just failed again. No mercy for those who stumble!

Buddhism is more compassionate and accepting of failure, but at a great price. It diminishes the significance of failure because failure is illusion, but so too is the rest of life! Life in this temporal world of illusion must be transcended through enlightenment. However, “enlightenment” is a matter of “recognizing” that everything we’ve valued (friends, family, vocation, beauty…) is also illusion. Buddhism therefore represents a denial of not just failure but everything. It’s like cutting off the head because of a toothache.

Authenticity and self-acceptance are rare commodities. Psychologist Shelley E. Taylor sums up the clinical evidence:

People are positively biased in their assessments of themselves and of their ability to control what goes on around them, as well as in their views of the future. The widespread existence of these biases and the ease with which they can be documented suggests that they are normal.

Ironically, mainstream secular counseling panders to our insatiable appetite for even more “positive” illusions through building self-esteem—something diametrically opposed to authenticity and self-acceptance—a refusal to accept the truth about ourselves.

We need to be converted from self-esteem to self-acceptance. God sends trials to reveal to us our true character and need and wean us from self-trust (2 Cor. 1:8-9; 4:7-18; 12:9-10; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; Eccl. 3:18). However, it is only through the promises of His unchanging love and forgiveness that we can tolerate such a revelation. Accordingly, Elyse M. Fitzpatrick, director of Women Helping Women Ministries, writes,

The counter-intuitive truth that the depressed person needs to hear isn’t “you’re really a wonderful person,” but rather, “you’re more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe”…Bathing our soul in the Gospel message will powerfully transform…It’s true that I’m more sinful and flawed than I ever dared believe, and that truth frees me from the delusion that I’ll ever be able to approve of myself; but I’m also more loved and welcomed than I ever dared hope, and that truth comforts and encourages me when my heart condemns me and my darling desires are all withheld. It assures me that although I struggle with accepting myself, the Holy King has declared me righteous.

It’s only through God’s acceptance that we can begin to accept the painful truth about ourselves and to live authentically. Ironically, there is great freedom in this. If we can learn to rejoice in the pit, then enjoying the mountaintop isn’t problematic. If we can accept the unflattering portrait of ourselves, we can cease the obsessive and strenuous occupation of trying to prove ourselves. If we can accept ourselves, then the opinions of others loose their bite. Criticism will no longer constitute a treat because it can tell us no new dirt about ourselves.

Self-acceptance is a pre-condition for authenticity. Modernity’s answer is self-esteem, but it turns out to be the antithesis—the refusal to accept ourselves as we truly are.

EUDAIMONIA AND DEPRESSION
Mental health professionals recognize that living in accordance with our moral convictions is an important factor for mental health. Accordingly, Karen Wright wrote,

Eudaimonia refers to a state of well-being and full functioning that derives from a sense of living in accordance with one’s deeply held values.

This is so obvious. Even atheists perceive this and are intent upon living moral lives. However, they ascribe their moral programming to evolution. For example, Richard Dawkins writes:

Natural selection, in ancestral times when we lived in small stable bands like baboons, programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on.

Consequently, altruism has nothing to do with truth or a right and wrong, but chance processes. Why then follow these altruistic urges? Appealing to our genetic programming isn’t adequate. Should we be “xenophobic” (fearful of strangers) merely because we had been “programmed” with this reaction? Of course not! Why then be altruistic? For the atheist, the only possible answer is pragmatic. Altruistic behavior works; it benefits the doer with good feelings. It’s solely a matter of cost/benefit analysis.

Atheist, humanist, and author of the Humanist Manifesto II, Paul Kurtz affirms that pragmatism is the “only” possible justification for morality:

How are these principles [of equality, freedom, etc.] to be justified? They are not derived from a divine or natural law nor do they have a special metaphysical [beyond the material world] status. They are rules offered to govern how we shall behave. They can be justified only by reference to their results.

However, pragmatism isn’t adequate. Sometimes it isn’t pragmatic to be moral. Hiding Jews from the Nazis wouldn’t pass the cost/benefit analysis. The price of a bullet in the head of the entire family is just too high! Therefore, non-theists can not live in harmony with both their rationale and the law of God written upon their conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Either they hide Jews and violate their pragmatic rationale or they don’t hide Jews and violate their conscience. Heart and mind (pragmatism) are divided and in conflict. In either case, their mental well-being will suffer, because they are unable to live “in accordance with one’s deeply held values.”

More fundamentally, the one who denies God and therefore denies the moral absolutes of the conscience will fail to derive the benefits of eudaimonia. There is little satisfaction in living in accordance with the dictates of the conscience if we understand it to be no more than a tyrannical electro-chemical reaction that demands us to make sacrifices that go against our desires and then punishes us with guilt feelings. In other words, just take a conscience-numbing drug!

In contrast, for the Christian, the conscience and the Word (heart and mind) represent the will of God, the source of all truth, joy, peace and love. We have every reason to regard it as a tremendous privilege to follow Him. Understandably, living according to His truth is a delight (Psalm 1:1-3; John 4:34).

MEANING, PURPOSE AND DEPRESSION
We are psychologically constituted to seek to understand our place in the world and to comprehend our purpose and meaning within it. The Jewish philosopher and theologian, Abraham Heschel, asserted this very thing:

It’s not enough for me to be able to say ‘I am’; I want to know who I am and in relation to whom I live. It is not enough for me to ask questions; I want to know how to answer the one question that seems to encompass everything I face: What am I here for?

However, not any understanding will do the trick. We have to understand that we’re more than just an accident, a mere product of nature and nurture. The maverick psychologist, James Hillman, concurs:

We dull our lives by the way we conceive then…By accepting the idea that I am the effect of…hereditary and social forces, I reduce myself to a result. The more my life is accounted for by what already occurred in my chromosomes, by what my parents did or didn’t do, and by my early years now long past, the more my biography is the story of a victim. I am living a plot written by my genetic code, ancestral heredity, traumatic occasions, parental unconsciousness, societal accidents.

If we fail to see ourselves as part of a higher narrative, there is a great danger of falling into depression. When we recognize that our lives have meaning, we can endure the trials and frustrations. Even the atheist and Christian-despiser Frederick Nietzsche wrote that “He who has a ‘why’ to live for can bear almost any ‘how!’”

But from where does this “why” or rationale come? Not from secular materialism, which denies all spiritual realities! In this regard, Psychologist Arthur Deikman writes:

Human beings need meaning. Without it they suffer…Western Psychotherapy is hard put to meet human beings’ need for meaning, for it attempts to understand clinical phenomena in a framework based on scientific materialism in which meaning is arbitrary and purpose nonexistent.

This leaves us with one possibility—a self-created existential meaning. The brilliant atheist mathematician, Bertrand Russell was confident he could do this very thing. In Why I am Not a Christian, he wrote of cherishing “the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of fate [of the rest of mankind], to worship at the shrines that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance.”

However, a self-constructed meaning is not sufficient. To suggest that one can merely dream up his own purpose is like telling him that instead of getting married he can merely dream up his own wife and kids for company. Instead, we need to know that we are somehow connected to Someone greater. Russell’s self-created meaning failed to hold back the “coward terrors.” Later he wrote, “I wrote with passion and force because I really thought I had a gospel. Now I am cynical about the gospel because it won’t stand the test of life.”

Instead, we were made to participate in a glorious drama (Jer. 29:11), and only acting on this exalted stage can ennoble and truly fortify us against depression (2 Cor. 5:20-21).

GUILT, SHAME AND DEPRESSION
Depression often results from the unresolved crippling feelings of guilt, shame and inadequacy. John Bradshaw warns about the depressing effect of these feelings, especially shame, which he defines as,

The internalized feeling of being flawed and defective as a human being…shame, which should be a healthy signal of limits, becomes an overwhelming state of being, an identity if you will. Once toxically shamed, a person loses contact with his authentic self. What follows is a chronic mourning for the lost self.

Bradshaw then explains how shame, the “master emotion,” begins to tragically numb the rest of the emotions through denial, repression, and dissociation. Where did this life-controlling shame come from? According to Bradshaw, it is a product of not being loved unconditionally. If this is the problem, then the answer is matter of providing unconditional love. One way this is achieved, according to Bradshaw, is through loving affirmations:

Repeated positive messages are emotional nutrients…Here are the loving words you can say to your inner infant:

“Welcome to the world, I’ve been waiting for you. I’m glad you are here. I’ve prepared a special place for you to live. I like you just the way you are. I will not leave you, no matter what...”

There are several problems with Bradshaw’s approach:

1. Bradshaw unjustifiably assumes that toxic shame is the result of a lack of love. Indeed, love might decrease our sensitivity to guilt, but this doesn’t mean that an increased sensitivity is pathological. Instead, it might have a beneficial effect. Likewise, it is better to live with our uncomfortable inhibitions, than to go “wilding” with friends, whose association decreases these inhibitions. Guilt and shame demand self-examination. If we have transgressed, the appropriate action is confession and repentance (1 John 1:8-9) and not soothing self-talk! If sin is the problem, then Bradshaw’s suggestion is merely a professional form of denial.

2. It’s not believable. If positive affirmations are going to work, they must be believed, but they should only be believed if they are in harmony with reality! However, it’s hard to take seriously Bradshaw’s proposed affirmations: “I’ve prepared a special place for you to live. I like you just the way you are...”

3. Believing something silly can only provide minimal and temporary relief.

On the other hand, if Bradshaw’s affirmations can work to alleviate depression, how much more God’s affirmations! If it helps me to assure myself that “I will not leave you,” how much more God’s assurance that He will never leave me (Rom 8:38-39; Heb. 13:5)! If I am reassured by, “I like you just the way you are,” I will find God’s promise, that He loves me with a love that surpasses anything I can understand, even more reassuring (Eph 3:17-20)! I may be able to forgive myself, but God’s forgiveness (Heb. 8:12) will penetrate so much more intimately and persuasively and will eventually secure self-forgiveness.

Bradshaw’s self-affirmations are to God’s affirmations as masturbation is to true relationship--a substitute for the real thing. Even worse, self-affirmations must be believed if they are to have any impact. However, Bradshaw promotes these affirmations apart from any consideration of their truth-content. The mind and reality are thus compromised for the sake of emotional relief. If we stoop to unreality, we will pay a hefty price further down the road.

In contrast to this, the Bible doesn’t admonish us to believe that Christ died for our sins simply because we’ll derive a sense of relief, but primarily because it is true, as many reliable witnesses have attested. God’s solution never requires us to compromise our intellectual integrity or reality.

MORAL LIVING, BLESSING AND DEPRESSION
Lastly, moral living translates into blessing (John 13:17) for all, including those who are depressed. In her introduction to Against Therapy, Dorothy Rowe writes,

David Small, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Nottingham University, head of Clinical Psychological services at Nottingham University, and once a practicing psychotherapist, has proposed an alternative to therapy in his book Taking Care. He wrote, ‘Psychological distress occurs for reasons which make it incurable by therapy but which are certainly not beyond the powers of human beings to influence. We suffer pain because we do damage to each other, and we shall continue to suffer pain as long as we continue to do damage. The way to alleviate and mitigate distresses is for us to take care of the world and the other people in it, not to treat them.

The relationship between obedience and blessing is no more clearly observed than in the context of marriage, where we find that we best meet our own needs when we best address the needs of our spouse (Eph. 5:28; 1 Peter 3:7).

In this regard, it is interesting to see how the leading names in marriage counseling are counseling couples according to the very principles found in Scripture! Whereas psychotherapists had been jumping on the communication-techniques bandwagon as the means to address marital conflict, now they are returning to the concepts of love and respect. John M. Gottman, professor of psychology and cofounder of The Gottman Institute writes,

The typical conflict-resolution advice won’t help. Instead, you need to understand the bottom-line difference that is causing the conflict between you—and learn how to live with it by honoring and respecting each other.

Gottman claims that a year after the average couple graduates from a standard course of conflict resolution training, only 18% retain any benefit from it (10). This represents far smaller percentage than those marriages which spontaneously improve. Marriage guru, Harville Hendrix, similarly writes,

Feel more loving toward each other simply by engaging in more loving behaviors…The husbands and wives are to grant each other a certain number of these caring behaviors a day, no matter how they feel about each other.

The type of “other-centeredness” that Gottman and Hendrix advocate can certainly jump-start a languishing relationship. However, in the long run, more is needed. Loving you mate can be hard work! Besides, if we’re just giving in order to get, the getting will eventually dry up along with the giving. In fact, there may be long periods when we’re not going to see the payoff! This is why it requires quite an effort, driven by deeply held convictions, to keep it going. Our focus must rest upon our spouse’s needs. But how do we do this when our own needs go unmet?

Larry Crabb explains that this “humanistic foundation” sets us up for failure by placing the emphasis upon meeting our own needs. Instead, if we are going to continue to act lovingly towards our mate, we need a true other-centeredness based upon the conviction that it’s right to do so even if we aren’t getting what we want from the relationship. And we will not be able to continue with this type of sacrifice unless we are assured that God is taking care of us, providing seed to the sower (2 Cor. 8:10).

If giving and going to the marriage counselor is only about getting results, then it isn’t truly giving and it probably won’t bare results over the long-haul. Instead, our mate will perceive our behavior as manipulation—giving to get what we want—a thinly concealed business transaction: “I’m giving to you so that I’ll receive my payments.”

What happens to the guy who brings his wife flowers whenever he wants sex? Eventually, she sees through his manipulation and resents the flowers, which are supposed to be signs of true romance and intimacy, but are no more than payment for services rendered by a body.

What can lift the couple out of self-serving “altruism?” The conviction that their mission is far loftier than the immediate fulfillment of their needs—that they are ambassadors (2 Cor. 2:15; 5:20) of the God of all truth, wisdom, healing, and love and that they belong to Him (1 Cor. 6:19-20)! Consequently, they are no longer the helpless depressive but a servant of Glory (Gal. 2:20).

There are many other psychological needs (forgiveness, humility, contentment, accomplishment, validation, joy, beauty...) we can survey in order to demonstrate how our Lord and His wisdom best address those needs. In contrast, there are numerous counterfeits. Curiously, they provide some relief in the short-run, but as with all drugs, there are hidden costs.

Another God-Substitute

In “The Belief Instinct,” evolutionary psychologist and lifelong atheist, Jesse Bering, admits to still having an “instinctual fear of being punished by God” (4). However, unlike the atheist Richard Dawkins who claims that this troublesome instinct is merely a negative by-product of an adaptive trait, Bering regards it as a positive, which has promoted socialization and survival, at least until now.

In support of his contention that the God-instinct is important for promoting moral behavior, he cites many social psychological experiments. In this regard, he quotes psychologists Norenzagan and Shariff:

• [Experimental] Activation of God concepts [among experimental subjects]…triggers this hyperactive tendency to infer the presence of an intentional watcher. This sense of being watched then activates reputational concerns, undermines the anonymity of the situation, and, as a result, curbs self behavior (193).

Although Bering readily acknowledges the advantages of our God-wiring, he also believes that it is delusional and that we humans can now set it aside like a worn-out overcoat:

• We are the first generation, in the history of our species, to be confronted directly by the full scientific weight of an argument that renders a personal God both unnecessary and highly unlikely (202).

Is God “highly unlikely?” In contrast to Bering’s position, many scientists take the opposite point of view, based on scientific findings of the fine-tuning of the universe, the immensity and improbability of the DNA informational system, and the complexities of the cell.

However, why would God now be “unnecessary” in light of the many benefits of this kind of faith that Bering has cited? He claims that we can now,

• Distance ourselves from an adaptive system that was designed, ultimately, to keep us hobbled in fear (201).

How can we “distance ourselves” from our built-in belief system? For one thing, we can recognize that wiring is all that it is. However, the Bible readily admits that we have this wiring (Romans 2:14-15), but this is not to say that our moral response is just a matter of wiring. It might be more accurate to regard this wiring as a built-in, God-given alarm system to alert us to a very real external reality with eternal consequences.

While Bering is clever enough to acknowledge the possibility of this reality, he regards it as unlikely. He also argues unconvincingly that we no longer need to be “hobbled by fear.” Although he cites Voltaire approvingly – “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him” – he argues that times have changed. How? Bering cites our advanced means of social control:

• Hidden cameras, caller ID, fingerprints, voice recognition software, “lie-detectors”…DNA and handwriting analysis (202).

However, isn’t this simply a substitution of one “fear” for another? Will Big Brother now fill God’s shoes?

• Who needs Voltaire’s “eye in the sky” when today we’ve got millions of virtual superhuman eyes trained on us from every possible angle (202).

I’ll take God’s benevolent eye any day of the week! However, Bering blandly adds, “We can live for each other” (205), perhaps sensing our distaste for his Big Brother. But it’s not merely a question of “distaste.” It’s also a matter of adequacy! Is Big Brother adequate to provide the type of world we all want to inhabit? We can answer this question by examining our modern-day totalitarian regimes, where we find its subjects desperately trying to escape. Who ever tried to climb the Berlin Wall to enter Communist East Berlin?

We have always been very creative in devising God-substitutes, but I think that we are running out of new possibilities. Perhaps there are sound reasons for opting for the original!

Marriage Under Fire

Although ordained by God (Gen. 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6), the institution of marriage is under heavy assault in Western culture. Just talk to college students! The National Marriage Project (NMP) recently performed extensive polling among various classes of Americans and concluded:

• Among the educational middle (a high-school diploma and maybe college…but no four-year degree) marriage is “foundering,” and among the least educated…marriage is “fragile and weak.” (according to Susan Olasky, World, 1/15/11, 61)

Such negative assessments about marriage are truly lamentable, especially if what the NMP concludes is correct:

• “If marriage becomes unachievable for all but the highly educated, then the American experiment itself will be at risk. The disappearance of marriage in Middle America would endanger the American Dream, the emotional and social welfare of children, and the stability of the social fabric in thousands of communities across the country.” (62)

This might sound alarmist to many. However, the stats seem to support the assessment of the NMP. According to LifeSiteNews.com, 1/31/11:

• Two medical students at Cardiff University studying existing data on the relationship of marriage to health have concluded that “stable, long term, exclusive relationships” lead to “more healthy lifestyles and better emotional and physical health,” and have a marked effect on longevity.

• Authors David Gallacher and John Gallacher cite a Cambridge study of “one billion person years across seven European countries that found that married persons had age adjusted mortality rates that were 10-15% lower than the population as a whole,” and that this statistic alone makes stable marriage “probably worth the effort.”

• The authors found that “physical and mental health benefits seem to accrue over time,” citing a 30-year longitudinal study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry which found that “the duration of a relationship was associated with better mental health scores, while the difference in mortality rates in favour of marriage, increases with age”

• “Exclusive and supportive relationships confer substantial mental and physical health benefits that grow over time.” (. The study, titled “Are relationships good for your health?” was published in the British Medical Journal on January 28, 2011.)

This conclusion is further justified when we look at the fate of children outside of the traditional marriage. In The Case for Marriage, Gallagher and Waite claim:

• “A preschooler living with one biological parent and one step-parent was forty times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with two natural parents.” (159).

Despite today’s dismal assessment of marriage and the human desire to sample fruit outside of its bounds, the studies seem to suggest that God did know what He was doing when He established monogamous, heterosexual marriage. It also demonstrates His concern for us!

Darwin and Biblical Compromise

Theistic evolutionists (TEs) tend to resent and deny the charge that their embrace of Darwin has been at the expense of Biblical revelation. I therefore want to list some of the most critical Biblical compromises that the TEs make and the implications of these compromises:

1. God’s creation placed His creatures in the ideal environment. He called it all “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Even the animals were designed as herbivores, eating only vegetation. This affirms that God is truly good, and the subsequent problems – sin and death – are our fault, not God’s. However, TEs are forced by their commitment to Darwinism to regard the bloody struggle of life and death, the survival-of-the-fittest, as God’s ultimate plan to establish the origin of the species. The absurdity of this is obvious. Consequently, the cunning Cain was acting in concert with God’s plan in killing his naïve brother Abel!

2. Humankind was God’s crowning creation, created in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27), making humankind far more valuable to Him than the rest of His creation. Consequently, there is sharp distinction between humans and the animal world. However, evolution dissolves this distinction in favor of an evolutionary continuum in which the distinctions are merely a matter of degree, and value is determined not by the fact that we are created to be like God (sanctity of life), but rather by an arbitrary appeal to our superior intelligence, productivity, or depth of our feelings (quality of life). To deny the special creation of humankind is also to deny the NT’s affirmation of its historicity and the theology derived from this historical event (James 3:9). It makes man into no more than a more sophisticated animal. It also serves to deprive humankind of the special privileges and protections that our moral and legal systems extend to him.

3. The Fall – the advent of sin and death through Adam – is the Bible’s explanation for our problems. As a result of the Fall, all creation was subjected to decay, awaiting the redemption of the physical world (Romans 8:19-23), which will take place when Christ returns (1 Cor. 15:20-57). However, if we embrace Darwinism, there is no room for a Fall, since sin and death originated long before Adam’s existence. In fact, the entire notion of sin has to be overhauled. Selfishness, competition, and securing exclusive mating privileges become an “essential” under Darwinism. Although TEs will strenuously deny this, it is a necessary part of the naturalistic system into which they have invested themselves.

4. The Restoration (Acts 3:21) to the original order is a “restoration” to the survival-of-the-fittest under Darwinism and not deliverance from sin, decay, and death as the Bible promises. While the Garden account presents us with an explanation of the advent of sin and death, it also provides the hope of restoration through the coming of a child, a second Adam (Gen. 3:15; 1 Cor. 15:21-22), who will reverse the effects of the sin of the first Adam. When TEs undermine that historicity of the first Adam, they also deprive the second Adam of His theological underpinning and impinge upon the theological unity of the Bible.

5. TEs generally “harmonize” Darwin with the Bible by asserting that the Bible is only about the spiritual world while evolution is only concerned with the physical (Good fences make good neighbors.) However, the Bible’s theology is inseparable from its history. The history of the Cross is essential to the theology of the Cross. The history of God creating male and female and joining them as “one” is essential to the theology of marriage, family and divorce (Matthew 19:4-6).

6. TE’s must “spiritualize” Scripture – regarding it as figurative – in order to regard it as exclusively “spiritual” and not physical. However, this creates additional problems:

a. By wrenching Scripture away from its most natural reading – rendering it figurative – interpretation is freed from all necessary constraints and simply becomes a reflection of whatever we want to read into Scripture. Therefore, there can be no certainty or assurance about what it is really saying.
b. The Bible consistently provides commentary on what has already been written. This commentary reaffirms its historicity, whether through its genealogies or theological reexaminations. The TE is therefore coerced by his presuppositions to reject the plain meaning of Scripture – adding and subtracting from the Word (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-20). Although they claim that it’s about honest interpretation, it resembles the coercion of the text into conformity with an alien worldview.

An Un-Nurtured Mind is a Vulnerable Mind, and Heart

“I don’t care what the skeptics have to say. I just know what I believe, and that’s not going to change!” This is something that many Christians mouth prior to going to university. Although I appreciate this resolve, I also think it a bit naive. It disregards the power of secular thought and the challenge to their faith that they will surely encounter in the university.

The Christian life is not only about a new heart. Although this is the primary most important element in our salvation, it is also about a new mind that requires continual nurturing (Romans 12:2; Psalm 1:2-3)! And we will not receive this nurturing in the secular university. Instead, we are grown through food that comes from God alone. There are many things that might look like growth, but Paul warns that what we call “maturity” will all be consumed in the end if it isn’t of Christ (1 Cor. 3:10-15). Instead, we must be built up by the teachings of “grace” (Heb. 13:9).

It is not enough to merely love God with all of our heart. Our heart must be directed by the knowledge of the truth. Therefore, Jesus required that you love God, “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). This is something that we can’t fulfill as long as our vulnerable minds are subject to teachings that we aren’t prepared to effectively critique.

While our heart affects our thinking, our thinking also affects our heart. We can’t divorce the two as many claim that we can. We will be influenced by what we hear, especially when it comes from highly educated authorities. Paul warned Timothy what the world calls “knowledge” because “some have professed [it] and in so doing have wandered from the faith” (1 Tim. 6:21).

Professor of Science, Karl Giberson, who teaches at a Christian school is
a good example of this. In “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,” he explains that he had been a fundamentalist until exposed to Darwin, which altered his faith:

• “Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science….[Darwin’s] acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (9-10)

However, Giberson reassured his readers that Darwin’s acid would go no further. However, several years later, it is apparent that the Darwinian leaven didn’t stop where he intended that it would. He writes:

• “In “The God Delusion” [evolutionist and atheist Richard] Dawkins eloquently skewers the tyrannical anthropomorphic deity of the Old Testament—the God that supposedly commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages and who occasionally went on his own rampages, flooding the planet or raining fire and brimstone on wicked cities. BUT WHO BELIEVES IN THIS DEITY ANY MORE, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.” http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/

It therefore makes a lot of sense that the Bible teaches us to bring all of our thoughts into conformity with the Gospel (2 Cor. 10:4-5). A little bad teaching can corrupt everything else (Gal. 5:9). If we don’t take these thoughts captive, they will surely take us captive. Our thoughts can support our faith or battle against it, but they will not sit quickly at the sidelines.

Mind and heart must be in agreement. Jesus taught that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. If our heart is telling us one thing and our mind is preaching another message, we will live in conflict.

Our mind forms a necessary protective shield around our tender heart. For instance, many experienced a failure in faith after having read Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code. The world of God was no longer trustworthy. However, through the efforts of many able apologists, many a doubting mind was fortified with facts, and faith was restored.

I underwent a severe trial of my faith after reading about the “manuscript hypothesis” which claimed the Old Testament was merely the product of many devious editors cutting and passing from existing manuscripts, over time. I tried to shelve my doubts, but they wouldn’t remain shelved. Consequently my faith in the Scriptures was undermined, until I read a dry but satisfying text on the subject, “Survey of Old Testament Introductions,” by Gleason Archer. This volume fortified my mind with the facts that I needed to reassure my beseiged heart.

If our mind has not aligned itself with our born-again heart, we live a schizoid and defensive life, fearful of the next attack or the next atheist who might cross our path. And fear brings avoidance and seclusion. We will not be able to make a defense of our faith as required (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3) and will not have a joyful and assured witness.

To disregard the command to love God with all of our minds is to disregard the tools He has given us, even His teachings. How can we submit our precious minds to the secular university, after He tells us that He blesses us in every way through the spiritual renewal of our minds:

• Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2-3)

One Christian claimed that nothing can separate us from God (Rom. 8:38-39). Although this is true, this doesn’t mean that we can disobey all of His teachings that He uses to keep us. To do so is to put our God to the test. When Jesus was challenged by the Deceiver to jump off the mountain – if He’s the Son of God, His angels with rescue Him – Jesus answered that this would be presumptuous of the grace and promises of the Father (Matthew 4:5-7), expecting God to compensate for our foolishness.

It is equally presumptuous of us to expose our minds to ideas and teachings we are not ready to handle and then to say, “I don’t care what the skeptics have to say. I just know what I believe and that’s not going to change."

The Impact of Secularism

While it is important to know from whence we have come, it is also important, although difficult, to know where we now are. It does seem however that we can note markers along the way in our march into the “brave and new world” of secularism:

• The European Commission has been attacked this week for its production of over three million copies of a diary, called Agenda Europa, which neglects to mention Christmas or any other Christian holiday. The diary includes references to Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jewish and Chinese festivities, as well as to May 9 - Europe Day. However, there is no mention of Christmas or Easter. The diary section dated December 25 is blank, while the bottom of the page reads the secular message: “A true friend is someone who shares your concerns and will double your joy,” London’s Telegraph reports. (as reported by LifeSiteNews.com)

When this “oversight” was brought to the attention of the EU commission,

• A commission spokesman in Brussels, Frederic Vincent, said the “blunder” would not be repeated in future editions. “We’re sorry about it, and we’ll correct that in next edition. Religious holidays may not be mentioned at all to avoid any controversy,” Vincent said, the Telegraph reports.

Well, that sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Not really! All of our values, decisions, legislative acts, committee determinations reflect our morality and worldviews, hence our religions. When the secularist says, “Religious holidays may not be mentioned at all to avoid any controversy,” it leaves Secularism as the only public fount of religious judgment, influence and teaching. In a sense, secularism is saying, “My religion will be the only one heard. All others will be removed from the public sector because of their potential for giving offense to the others.”

However, secularism is a stealth religion posing as an impartial ideology. It has its judgments and opinions about moral and legal issues, just as any other religion, and it’s just as evangelistic. Just attend a few atheistic/secular humanistic meetings! Although this network of groups disdains any reference to themselves as “religious,” it is interesting to note that they used to refer to themselves in this manner:

• BERTRAND RUSSELL: “The greatest danger in our day comes from new religions, communism and Nazism. To call these religions may perhaps be objectionable both to their friends and enemies, but in fact they have all the characteristics of religions…”

• THE FIRST HUMANIST MANIFESTO (Paul Kurtz, 1933): “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”

• JOHN DEWEY, WHO SIGNED THE MANIFESTO: “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race…It remains to make it explicit and militant.”

• THE US SUPREME COURT (Torasco v. Watkins – 1961): “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Why does secularism now disown the idea that it is a religion? “Kurtz understands this, admitting that if Secular Humanism is a religion, ‘then we would be faced with a violation of the First Amendment…’” (All the above quoted from David Noebel’s, Understanding the Times, 16-18)

What does this portend for the future? If the present trend continues, we should expect to see the marginalization of traditional religions and their domination by an increasingly repressive, secular state, all in the name of maintaining peace and order!

Shariah and Western Democracy

To be an Islamic nation requires Shariah Law, and Shariah Law requires penalties for criticizing Islam. This fact has once again come to light, this time in conjunction of the sentencing to death of a Pakistani Christian woman for the crime of “blaspheme.” However, this sentenced had been opposed by at least one Pakistani:

• In an editorial today entitled “Under Siege,” the New York Times laments the recent violence committed by radical Islamists against Christians in Egypt and Iraq. Yesterday, the Times ran an editorial entitled “A Brave Man Killed,” in which it lamented the assassination of Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province who had called for the repeal of Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law. This law, popular with Pakistan’s Muslim majority, imposes a mandatory death sentence on anyone convicted of insulting Islam.

Blaspheme laws are not the product of Islamic extremists. They find their basis within the Koran itself:

• [33:57-58] Those who insult [aa-dh-aa] God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them— and those who undeservedly insult [aa-dh-aa] believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin.

Although the Koran doesn’t specify the here-and-now penalties against the blasphemer, all Islamic nations impose penalties. In the “moderate” nation of Malaysia, Christians had even been prohibited from using their traditional name for God – “Allah.” However, legal petition was made, and this right was granted to the churches. Immediately, 10 churches were burned to the ground. The case was then appealed to the higher court, where the privilege to use the name “Allah” was retracted.

All of this suggests that if there is such a thing as “moderate” Islam, it lacks any meaningful voice in the Islamic world. Not only was the reformer Taseer murdered, but a great number of clerics applauded it:

• As reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute, on January 4, 2011, just a few hours after the assassination of Salman Taseer, more than 500 Pakistani religious scholars and clerics issued a statement lauding the assassin, who was Taseer’s bodyguard. They praised the assassin for keeping alive a “tradition of 1,400 years in Islam” which requires the killing of anyone committing an act of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad. (Quoted from an article by Joseph Klein: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/01/06/the-global-radical-islamic-threat-to-freedom-ignore-or-excuse-at-our-peril/)

Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum in 1994, laments that Western resolve to stand against Shariah is crumbling, even in the USA. When the Ayatollah Khomenei issued a death edict against the writer Salman Rushdie,

• The U.S. Senate voted unanimously for a resolution asserting the right to write whatever you want. Well, 21 years later, people are being threatened and the Senate is not responding. Before 1989 anyone could write or draw whatever they wanted about Islam. Now if you do this, you are taking your life in your hands. If those of us who critique Islam and Muhammad are not allowed to speak or are intimidated from speaking, Islamists prevail…The real issue here is: Are we allowed to defend our civilization or not?” (From an interview, WORLD, Jan. 15, 2011, 28)

Pipes claims that polygamy is already here, but no one is saying anything. How can they, if they are promoting same-sex marriage! Where choice has become the highest “truth,” any moral rationale to resist Shariah is diminished.